My understanding - there isn't a best one as you can do anything with any system according to your needs. The answer is subjective to what suits you best and that differs from person to person. The question can only be answered by you - which involves spending money on gear to establish this along the way. The good thing though is that it is fun going through this process to get to your own conclusion. What's important is not trying to force everyone to agree with your own conclusion (I hope I haven't done that on this forum; if I ever do that, just give me a slap).
 
Last edited:
Of course, I am myself somewhat passionate about my own choices - but I see benefits in (almost) all FF systems, including one most people will discard out of hand, the M mount.

Here are a few thoughts on the benefits of some systems I can see:
  • Sony (F)E mount: Vastly popular, lots of lens options, innovative bodies, many of which can be seen as pioniering key features and technical achievements that became benchmarks. The place to look for a kind of "leader" in the mirrorless field: Sony keeps pushing the envelope and forces everyone else to try and keep up.
  • L mount: a joint effort (something we see all too rarely in the industry, the other, :mu43:, being even more impressive, but not FF), very ambitious as well as very interesting lens options. With the arrival of the Panasonic S5 II, there's a superb entry point to the system available - and the older S5 isn't to be sneezed at either. Through the L mount Alliance, the way the lens system develops is quite impressive.
  • Nikon Z (a word of warning: my choice!): great handling bodies with well-judged features (consistently good EVFs in all models, confidence-inspiring levels of sealing and sturdiness, effective I.B.I.S. in all models), judicious backward compatibility (including native adapters that allow you to make the best of former Nikon F lenses, especially ones with built-in AF motors), and last, but not least, a very well judged lens system that gets fleshed out in a very convincing manner - very well thought through, no major gaps, no curious multi-strategic approach, straightforward and resulting in great quality, well-priced (if not cheap, as a rule) offerings. At this point, I'll repeat the warning once more: I've put my money where my mouth is with this system because of its merits. YMMV, of course.
  • Leica M mount: Many aspects of its technological foundations may appear outdated, but there's no other system you can get more interesting and optically fantastic lenses for; small and portable, but very expensive bodies, wonderful, but of course quirky shooting experience. You'll either love it or hate it. I love it - in fact, in spite of my infatuation with Nikon Z, I'd have a hard time deciding against my M mount gear if I was forced into only maintaining one system.
Please note that I will not comment on Canon RF because my take on it is somewhat critical, but mainly, I completely lack experience with it. Better informed people will doubtlessly chime in on that system.

There are, of course, also very well established DSLR mounts, like Pentax K, Canon EF and Nikon F. But my guess is that this thread wasn't meant to cover them as well. However, since it's possibly meant to show entry points, I will say here that I see great potential in many DSLRs for beginners and enthusiasts alike.
  • While Pentax offers basically one model (with two iterations), the K-1 is a powerful beast of a camera and offers something unique in the FF DSLR world: I.B.I.S. It's big and heavy, but handling is great, and results are stunning, as the small, but very competent group of users on this forum have clearly shown. For me, it's the DSLR that's still competitive in today's expanding field of mirrorless FF options. Plus it works impressively well with the multitude of K mount lenses available.
  • Canon EF offers the most inexpensive entry point to FF DSLRs, and their models were always considered benchmarks in their day. I have very limited experience with their cameras (I've been able to use a 5D II and a 5DSR for very short periods of time - and it's a long time since), but I found them very well thought through, and results were very impressive, though the 5DSR was kind of quirky and very difficult to get things right with due to its huge pixel count in a body that lacked any supportive technologies (like, most of all, I.B.I.S.). But the 6D and 6D II still are impressive bodies and can be hand quite cheap as well even though they're quite recent (at least the 6D II). In fact, if I ever decided to buy into a system just for the joy of playing with it, an early 5D or 5D II may well be my pick ...
  • I still love my Nikon D750. Any model from the D600 to the D850 will be rewarding to shoot, very well made and reliable. There are a couple of caveats with certain D600 and D750 models - but you can check for affected batches online. Furthermore, the current D780 packs all the strengths of the D750 in an even more durable body and adds most of the desirable features of the Z 6, though with the notable exception of I.B.I.S. If you're into using LiveView on a DSLR, there's none better, though - which is kind of surprising, considering how well Canon's bodies handle that task as well. That said, my recommendation still goes to the D750 - for what you pay for it, you get a fantastic camera that's also pretty compact by DSLR standards, as well as - should you choose to set it up that way - very beginner-friendly. And don't forget that the F mount as a very long, very proud history.
Lastly, please take everything said above with a grain of salt. I may appear to be a Nikonite or Nikon fanboy, but note that I tried quite a few systems and came back to Nikon. This includes, of all things, Sony FE. There are many reasons for me to prefer Nikon's offerings. However, familiarity may play a decisive part in my take, so please, don't see this as anything else but an opinion - if I said something, anything you find controversial, please tell me, and I'll either remove it or correct it.

M.

P.S. First and foremost, I tried to set a tone with this post; in truth, I'm not all that keen on propagating my own choices - because they're mine and based on my needs and preferences, yours may differ fundamentally. I just hope we can keep this thread trucking on in this kind of manner ...
 
I guess this is the "The best camera is the one that you have with you".

For this question, the answer is "best for what?" None of them are best for everything. Most are good enough for what anyone needs. But the best one is optimized for individual requirements. So- list your requirements, evaluate the trade-offs, make a decision for what is best for you.
 
When I was buying a family camera way back when, I considered how long certain mounts had been around and how long I thought they'd stay around. I settled on Nikon's F mount at that time since it was backward compatible and it looked to be forward compatible for the foreseeable future too. It worked for me all the way from my FE to D7000.
Looking at buying a mirrorless mount, I was pretty limited to Sony E mount as not many other cameras were out at the time that offered the number of options it did. So far it has served me well as the adapters have allowed me to enjoy all of my old manual focus lenses. My Sony adventure has gone from a NEX-7 to a recently purchased A7Riii. Your mileage may vary as they say.
 
The best full frame mount would be the one that has both camera bodies and lenses that meet your needs. For me Nikon Z, L mount and Sony are all the best because they all offer the lenses that I need and are mirrorless which I want. Canon R mount doesn't make the cut because the last I heard they are restricting third party lens manufacturing. I also have an irrational dislike for all things Canon, so there's that.

Edited to add:
I don't know what happened. I wrote this but it's gone missing.

For me micro 4/3 and Fuji GFX are both better than any FF system because they both fulfill my needs in a way that no FF system does.
 
Last edited:
I also have an irrational dislike for all things Canon, so there's that.
Probably a good place to add that anyone with an irrational dislike for any camera gear, send it to me.
I have an irrational like for all camera gear. I also place a lot of it with people showing interest in photography.

I did just research the Canon RF mount: Canon has not licensed their RF mount to third-party lens manufacturers, issued cease and desist orders based on Patent infringement.
I wish Canon had used a different name. They use names long-associated with a Camera, like the Canon EF of the 1970s- for a lens mount. Now they use Canon RF mount- as in Rangefinder. First lens I used on the Nikon Z5 was the Canon 50/0.95 Rangefinder lens. They cannot call it Canon R mount, as they used that term for their first SLR system- before the FL and FD mount. Very confusing to anyone that has used Canon for a long time.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate Matt's words on the K-mount; it's definitely a legacy option at this point but one with some surprising strengths, and it's somewhere I'm happy to park for the time being. But I would probably argue in favor of the L-mount alliance. You've got several, very different, manufacturers of both lenses and cameras, so there's a lot of variety. If Sigma can get their Foveon L-mount body out things might get really, really interesting on that front (although niche). I really like the lenses Sigma puts out for this mount. Of course, if you want to be able to afford the top shelf within this mount (Leica) you've got to shell out some bucks. It's also sad that the Leica CL Digital, an APS-C L-mount camera, was discontinued, as it was a fairly compact alternative and would make for an excellent backup body. You can still find them. But the Panasonic S5ii might offer the best value proposition in this format.
 
Thanks for the many replies.
Choosing a FF mount means choosing a brand, like for example Pan, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Sigma, Pentax, Leica, etc.
So far I haven"t a digital FF camera. Someday I might. But size and weight holds me back, I may stick at MFT.
 
Thanks for the many replies.
Choosing a FF mount means choosing a brand, like for example Pan, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Sigma, Pentax, Leica, etc.
So far I haven"t a digital FF camera. Someday I might. But size and weight holds me back, I may stick at MFT.
Sounds like that's the best thing for you, especially if you're happy enough with what you have and it meets your needs.
 
Thanks for the many replies.
Choosing a FF mount means choosing a brand, like for example Pan, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Sigma, Pentax, Leica, etc.
So far I haven"t a digital FF camera. Someday I might. But size and weight holds me back, I may stick at MFT.
I really feel that M4/3 still offers the best compromise of IQ versus size, and is such a mature system. APS-C offers a slight bump but I think the main reason to go there would be features of the system you want, such as Fuji controls, Sony autofocus, etc., not image quality.

With FF there's usually a much bigger bump. I find the 36mp sensor in the Pentax K-1 responds very well to shooting at high ISO and using DXO DeepPRIME NR gently in post processing. It goes far beyond what I could get with M4/3 and still looks excellent. And of course, if you want shallow depth of field, FF offers a lot of that.

One of the reasons I recommended L-mount is that you don't have to pick a manufacturer. You could start off with a Panasonic and switch to a Leica, or even a Sigma, later on, and keep the lenses.
 
I really feel that M4/3 still offers the best compromise of IQ versus size, and is such a mature system. APS-C offers a slight bump but I think the main reason to go there would be features of the system you want, such as Fuji controls, Sony autofocus, etc., not image quality.
Another consideration is aspect ratio. I've looked at M4/3 from time to time, and sometimes I've been very tempted. But I just know that if I bought an M4/3 camera I'd be forever cropping 4:3 landscape images to 3:2 (because I prefer 'em that way).

-R
 
Another consideration is aspect ratio. I've looked at M4/3 from time to time, and sometimes I've been very tempted. But I just know that if I bought an M4/3 camera I'd be forever cropping 4:3 landscape images to 3:2 (because I prefer 'em that way).

-R
Good point, I'm in the same boat with aspect ratio, always preferred 3:2, but there are the occasional times when 4:3 works better for me. I tend to like to keep cameras in their native aspect ratio and treat it like a feature, or quirk, of the system (since I'm not shooting solely with M4/3 nowadays, it can be part of my decision in picking a camera to shoot with.
 
Back
Top